Monday, August 15, 2005

"Brown is the new Black..."

Comment: It is now suspicious to film a tourist attraction. Good Lord, think of the political repreucussions of bombing the Santa Monica Pier. They must have been with Al Qaeda.

SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- Three men who were seen videotaping the Santa Monica pier in a suspicious manner have been identified and were seen videotaping in other communities, police said Thursday.All three men were of Middle Eastern descent, NBC4 reported. The men's nationalities had nothing to do with the investigation, police said.

"Ordinarily, when tourists videotape, they don't videotape security structures for an extended period of time," said Santa Monica Police Chief James T. Butts. "They don't focus on access roads, and usually, the tourists themselves are in the photographs to document they were there, and that's not what these photgraphs showed."

The three men were not arrested, police said.

At least one community leader, however, questioned whether or not racial profiling was involved, NBC4 reported.

"That creates this kind of confusion, this kind of fear that if someone is Middle Eastern and filming, does that fall into the category of being suspicious?" Sabiha Khan, of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said. "So, behavior should be profiled, not people."

The investigation began on July 22, when a member of the public who had taken still photographs of the three contacted the Santa Monica Police Department, according to Santa Monica Police Lt. Frank Fabrega.

Butts said the department will take additional steps to increase police visibility throughout the city, by adding more officers, changing deployment locations and limiting access to parts of the pier.

I agree with both of you, and find it a struggle to get people to believe in the existence of corroborating evidence - much less check it out.

I'm on a full-scale offensive to embarrass the politically willfully ignorant who are very forceful about it - that drives me nuts. I really think they've cowed the balance of liberals into appeasement because they mock or ignore arguments they can't beat - rendering a discussion impossible without playing by their rules and agreeing to only gently question their facts.

The media also suggests we shy away from discussions about how horrible the world is becoming, because Wolfowitz policies that were "crazy" under Bush Sr. in 1992 are now manifested as "crazy" reality of perpetual war for empire. I don't even care if they're for Manifest Destiny, dammit at least they could argue honestly for it.

Really, on every liberal metric from the Soft-Left (e.g. The New York Times - Krugman on the economy), to the Harder-Left (Randi Rhodes - on torture and military procedure), to the Libertarian (Alex Jones - the "globalists" or rich/evil investors profiting massively off war), this is a historically bad direction for 99% of the planet, so getting 51% shouldn't be that hard...

I've got 4 videos I'd recommend you pass on to whomever may eventually watch them. The way I figure, if we can at least debate about the same info maybe we can convince people of our merit, perhaps you can trade a Lefty video for a Righty and then agree to discuss both?

1) Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (14 - 35 yrs old target mkt)

And that's it really, and every 13-yr old in Texas worth his spurs would be asking to borrow one of his fathers guns to help take back his country.

Plus, if the "American Government" (the people have no real say when they accept, forgive and forget lies) decided not to intervene when Saddam "illegally" invaded Kuwait, then they would probably aid any insurgency they wanted - as they've done for 50+ years, with far more than a measly $600k.

Plus, the $1.4 bln promised in "reconstruction money" has hardly been spent, while all the "destroying money" is being used at a rate of $2 bln per day, give or take...

Plus anywhere from $1 bln to $20 bln in Iraqi oil money has been stolen out of the country... so consider Code Pink picking up a tiny chunk of America's promised cheques.

It's a little too easy to demonize the side one is willfully ignorant of, or make excuses to trash some of the most passionate members of the Left without looking for any other explanations. And finally, to drag Ms. Sheehan's name through the gutter is just embarrassing - she's by any metric just a Patriot with a different point of view.

I hope she is the anti-war Rosa Parks, and I hope this is the tipping point for everyone - I can't imagine how awful it is to be trained to live with a spigot of unbridled cynicism and hatred on tap at any second upon GOP Central Command orders...

Peace, (NOW!!!) BK

_________________

...

Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy - blackkrishna.blogspot.com/

Music - www.soundclick.com/bands/0/blackkrishna.htm

...

(...)

BONUS: Lies, damned lies, and Republicans...

The war was based on willful acts of deception.

The war's rationales change every month.

The war is not being played to win, it's being played to play.

If they really wanted to win quickly they would've listened to General Shinseki, he and many others said they needed 200 - 300,000 troops for a country that size to pacify it. And they wouldn't let 380 tonnes of weapons get stolen. And they woudn't let insurgents crawl in from countries they have control of. And they wouldn't let Pakistan hide Osama. And they wouldn't focus on building 14 bases instead of fighting the insurgency.

Of course, if it drags on Halliburton racks up those no-bid contracts, Carlyle et al have boom years, the military gets to try out its new toys...

Hell -- even OIL COMPANIES ARE MAKING RECORD PROFITS while GAS PRICES SOAR!

So, all your boyz buddies get paid while you balloon your $7 trillion debt - at least a third owed to foreign banks, and turn America into a war-economy built on crushing inflation and no more "volunteer" army, with a destroyed job market there won't be many other options anyway.

The Washington Post reported that NORTHCOM, the new Homeland Security military arm has 3000 soldiers at various cities in case Martial Law is needed, plus the major media stationed in Washington D.C. have evacuation plans in case the capital is hit with a nuclear weapon.

Is this the world you want to live in? And no, you can't blame terrorists, there were only a handful of those that the government knew very well before they decided to destroy one of the oldest civilizations in history, and take random innocent descendents and torture them.

If your "Club G'itmo" (to quote Rush Limbaugh's "America Loves Torture!" T-shirts) is so good, and if you aren't just torturing a bunch of poor goat-herder men, women, and children there and at Abu Ghraib for no reason, where's the good intelligence?

How do I know you don't have it? The war's going shitty. All of them.

Cindy Sheehan is less than half the issue here, and making this case about her credibility which could be established in a few hours is dirty pool against a true Patriot with a different opinion.

You know, it certainly appears the character of the people in charge is bred into their attack dogs: liars begat liars.

Slavish members of the lowest-ranking Republican Guard channel paranoid aggression bred by their loyalty to thieves, message board posters ranting slander, lacking in substance, and rubbing salt in wounds like the election was a childish tug-of-war won, and they can now indulge in grotesque gloating in a big mindless "screw you" to half of America...

And that's who's in charge.

They have no desire to engage in issues based on a common set of facts - they have their own made-up ones, and won't hear anything to the contrary. This despite the fact they later acknowledge and absorb a steady diet of failed lies as part of a "strategy" to "win" the "war" on terror, "war" on Godless Liberals, "war" on families...

Liberals have to listen to your "talking points" sold as facts, they're equivocated on mainstream news until the buzz around their fraudulence grows too big - if it's found. But, with many angles of attack rebuttals are of a healthy variety, internal discourse is vigorous and true, and will lead to the best solutions.

Conservatives beware: you're losing your individuality, and your new habit of just practicing nastier ways of saying the same thing until it's echo-chambered messily into history is no check and balance on your own unemployment.

Peace by peace...BK

(...)

BONUS: Damn straight...

You go girl is right!

She deserves the support of every American for finally forcing the media to legitimize a needed voice in the dialogue - apparently 62% of the country was being shut-out! Heck, even Dubya said he was a "Uniter not a Divider", and since he's done such a crappy job so far just consider this a gift to help ya boy out!

And just time time too: now Lord Bush is talking about starting a war with Iran... is this really a good idea? Aren't we glad questions about "war" as a good idea are being brought up when for this President it's a reflex?

I mean honestly, they haven't even finished the last two... which wasn't the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" plan - remember? And just like every other country on earth save for a handful America won't mess with, Iran is no threat.

That is... unless random musings about destroying them start to seem threatening... hmm....

And to lump 60 mm Iranians in with the "Axis of Evil" is a farce: you don't bomb a city just to arrest a murderer, and you can't possibly look at any of these places and believe in killing millions of innocent people because of the actions of a handful of terrorists - that could be caught wtih cooperation (like we do with Europe!) if we wanted to...

You go Cindy Sheehan, expose a fraction of the human cost of war and show people how terrible it is, and don't let the chicken-shit chicken-hawks cluck you up... :)

Peace by peace...BK

(...)

BONUS: Brilliant Bollocks...

I feel so bad for you man, you're embarrassing: just because you don't know it that means it's not true?

Get it straight: YOU GUYS LIE ALL THE TIME.

And that makes you paranoid.

We don't. Mad

And you have to understand, human beings don't naturally want to act like that, so snap out of it, you're being silly.

Here:

Bush Raises Option of Using Force against Iran

Reuters

Saturday 13 August 2005

Crawford, Texas - President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.

But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the US-led war on Iraq, told an election rally on Saturday the threat of force was not acceptable.

In what appeared to be a reference to Bush's remarks that "all options are on the table," Schroeder told the crowd in his home city of Hanover:

" ... let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work."

SOURCE - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081305A.shtml

And that's what you get from people who want to tell you the truth: people that find it in the regular news coverage for us, and supplement that with the best info possible. If the people who lie to you don't want you to know something: you don't. That makes you less-informed.

However, lucky you can now chicken-hawk your war talk, that was Bush's shout-out to the world: "Yep, I enough of an asshole to start another illegal war."

(...)

BONUS: Who casually says "first resort?"

No seriously, you have at least two wars going on and are in negotiations to stop a third... and he brings this up?

WHO SAYS: "WAR IS A FIRST RESORT"???

Why did he bring it up at all?

Out of the blue?

It was uncalled for except to begin beating the new drums of war, and if you need more proof of "threatening to attack Iran" this early in our next likely war you're insane.

This. Is. How. It. Starts.

And what - you don't think Iran heard it?

What do you think they think?

"Oh, he's probably just bringing up war with us as an option to make small talk, like "chasin' armadillah's is fun..."

This is called sabre-rattling, and no he's not ranting like a demon from hell but:

HE DID SAY THIS SHIT!

(...)

Bush Raises Option of Using Force against Iran

What part of: Bush Raises Option of Using Force against Iran

did you not understand?

This is a wealthy international mainstream news feed, and THEY phrased it that way. And Schroeder thought so too, that's why he had to have a rebuke and threaten relations. This was a deliberate "thought" delivered to the media by Bush, just floatin' it out there...

And while I don't think you "should" go to war with Iran, with 2 mm soldiers and 14 bases being built next door, etc., etc., I THINK YOU CAN.

This is not about suggesting The Bush Doctine is "sane" now, you can't do that.

It's been crazy from the very beginning, and to (attemp to) quote Robert McNamara: "if we can't convince nations of like-minded interest of the merit of our cause, we'd better re-evaluate our reasoning".